If someone takes a stand against what is now called Zionism, that is, the Church/State of Israel, many times the label anti-Semitic is placed on them. This is a curious predicament for those who have held a high regard for the plight of Jews, and yet do not agree with the constant war for 60 years. The ideal here is further convoluted by the fact that the power structure of Israel is considered mostly secular in nature, using the strong arm of the Knesset and the Mossad in its covert military campaigns not only in the Middle East, but around the world, including the United States. This is mostly not understood in the West, in fact, there are more opposition to the constant state of war in Israel than what is found in the US. The paragraph below will define what the word Semitic actually means, as conversely, someone who opposed the Palestinian cause can be labeled the same. So let us define just what Zionism is, and what is a Semite?

American Free Press Photoshop by Ken LaRive

Firstly, Zionism has unfolded into two major ideologies, one is that of a military, or, a predominately Jewish Church State, and the other, though now mostly forgotten, is what was originally referred to as a Jewish Homeland. As the former is borne entirely of conquest, the latter is borne of peaceful respect for all people to live in peace in one place, so let us try and understand the difference.

When a military is involved, the liberty of another must be conquered, whereas, the idea of a Jewish homeland can coexist with all other religions in that same region, and many others can call that exact same land their homeland as well. Secondly, a Jew cannot be considered the one and only Semite. It is like North Americans calling themselves Americans, when all of North and South America consider themselves the same. The Semite includes both the ancient and modern forms of Ahlamu, Akkadian (Assyrian-Babylonian), Amharic, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite (Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge'ez, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Sutean, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, and about twenty others. Today the word "Semite" refers mostly to a large number of people who inhabit the Middle East, and are of ancient Southwestern Asian descent, primarily the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), all Arabs, and encompass about ten more.

So when Prime Minister Netanyahu calls Christians, especially Catholics, anti-Semitic, for criticizing the never-ending violence found between Palestine and Israel, his accurate asseveration of anti-Semitism is in question. There was a time, and not so very long ago, where such a character assassination would silence all opposition, but this is changing, and the resistance to a constant bloodbath in that region growing, and the basic ideals questioned. To take this one step further for educational purposes, when Prime Minister Netanyahu proclaims that he will crush Palestinians into submission, couldn't this be considered an anti-Semitic act as well? Well, this would be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic. Furthermore, Christians live in Palestine, and have since the 11th century in relative peace. Indeed, they are being crushed, as they are Palestinians.

The growing opposition of Orthodox Jews

There are thousands of Orthodox Jews in the US and Europe who are opposed to the Church State of Israel, and some are burning the Israeli flag in protest. Are they anti-Semitic as well? And when thousands of Negro Christians fleeing for their lives from persecution finally found themselves at the gates of Israel looking for sanctuary, they were denied entry. Can that not be considered anti-Christian, and racist as well? And when Prime Minister Netanyahu was asked about his decision to send these Christians back into the desert, he explained, and I paraphrase: “If we let them in, many more will follow, and if we get too many non-Jews here, we will no longer be considered a Jewish State. We need to have at least 80 percent Jews to maintain that.” But he would not comment on how many Christians died in the desert to maintain his Jewish ratio. Seems a Christian turned back into the desert is just as viable to Israel as the backing of an American Christian's collection plate, as both, in their own way, is the lifeblood of the Church State of Israel. Is a Christian with money any more valuable than a poor black Christian dying of thirst in the desert? Apparently, to Israel, they are.

Without Evangelical Christians promoting a Jewish Church State for sixty years, it would not exist. Didn't Evangelicals know that America's founders were opposed to a dominate religion in control of government, and gave us a Bill of Rights, and a Constitution to thwart it? We have a freedom of religion, but we also have a freedom from it as well. They knew, full well, our founders, the destruction of Liberty a Church/State manifests, and many had come to America to flee its slavery and oppression. Some Evangelicals maintain that the death of non-Jews, even Christians and Muslims, will usher in the New Messiah, and their dogmatic faith promotes the cost divinely ordained to bring in the second coming of Christ. And in the ensuing apocalypse, Jews and Muslims will finally be converted. And then, as admitted by both Zionist and Hamas military, innocent death is considered collateral damage, and worth the ultimate price.

One has to wonder, was the original ideal of a peaceful Zion based on a homeland considered? Or is it possible that some saw the opportunity to make another war machine, to control and dominate, to steal resources from the oil-rich sands of Iraq and Iran, to the Poppy fields of Afghanistan, who supplies Europe with 80 to 90 percent of its refined heroin?

It is amazing, with as much as we Americans have seen this last decade, of a far reaching government destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights, from the NDAA, The Patriot Act, to the destruction of our privacy by unwarranted surveillance, the distracted breach of our sovereign southern borders, unchecked and unsecured, that we would not question more what the primary motivation is in the Middle East? That we would have any more trust left in our vacuous collective minds seems borderline insanity. What fearful, ignorant, and trusting cowards we have become, where the sticks and stones of lies and deceit, of imposed taboo and open propaganda, a lack of a free press, fills the American mind with lustful appetite, where truth is no longer valued, or welcomed. But not to worry, it is a universal law, in spite of our ignorant dependence and myopic selfishness, that we will all get just what we deserve. And if that sentiment leaves you with an unsettled feeling, good, perhaps there is hope after all.

Share this article

Retired from the Oil Patch, Ken LaRive divides his time with grandchildren, writing, photography, and Country French Antiques, all passions of the heart. He now resides with his wife Maddy in Lafayette, Louisiana.

ISIS claimed responsibility Tuesday for the attack at a Texas event featuring caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad — but did not provide evidence to support its claim.Charlie Winter, an NBC News counter-terrorism consultant, confirmed that ISIS said in ...